In Dwelling

I'm Roz, and this is my relaxed space. It's about fun, good conversation and — well yes — good conversation. Pull up a well-padded armchair and help yourself to something to drink. You'll find cheese and crackers on the sideboard. What's new with you?

If you're looking for things in a more serious or spiritual vein, you can check out Exultet where I write that sort of thing.

I was part of a dialogue about "choice" over on Open Book. I wanted to extract my remarks here, not because I was particularly eloquent, but because I was able to articulate my thoughts better than I often do.

My thoughts were in response to this commentary on the original post:

[By "The Americanist"] Psst.... "pro-choice" simply means the woman gets to decide. It doesn't mean women in comfortable shoes who think they're pagan goddesses. It doesn't mean sex without consequences. It doesn't mean that men are pigs -- nor paragons. It simply means that SHE gets to decide. Not the government. Not ... you guys. She does.

So long as the baby is inside her body -- and it is HER body -- the civic issue is: her body, her choice.

The less pro-life folks admit that as a simple fact, somehow found in the Consttution and upheld by the Supremes for 31 years, and continue t preclude its centrality to the argument (as the bishop did by excluding that most women actually CHOOSE to give birth), the more you alienate the very folks you want to persuade.

Here's what I posted:

[The Americanist said:] "So long as the baby is inside her body -- and it is HER body -- the civic issue is: her body, her choice.

There, straight out, is the arrogant fallacy.

My money, sitting on deposit in Joe's bank, is not Joe's money but mine. He is responsible to me for his stewardship. The owner of a beating heart inside me with a gene map different from my own is not me, and that being is not mine to dispose of. He or she is being held in a trust account for which stewardship I am responsible.

Accepting this is part of being a grown up."

And a little later, in a discussion about the term "pro-choice":

"A civilized society sometimes, when necessary, restricts the right to make particular choices when it is in the interest of society as a whole or those of its members not in a position to otherwise protect themselves. The use of "right to choose" when applied to whether or not to abort is a euphemistic label designed to eliminate the word "abortion" from discussion of the topic and should be acknowledged as such. "

3
comments

As an editor, I find the language issue relates to both sides. My newspaper rules that so-called "pro-abortionists," as the other side calls them, should be termed pro choice, because not all those people would choose to have an abortion of their own, but don't deny the right of each woman to make her own choice. And the "right-to-lifers," as they often call themselves, should be termed anti-abortionists, because they don't always espouse all rights to life. As for my own position, I am pro-choice. I disagree that life begins at fertilization. And I would never want to force a young girl or woman to have to bear a child that was the result of rape or incest, even if it were to be given up for adoption.I know how highly charged this issue is. And although I see the other side's arguments, I still disagree with them. And, obviously, different denominations disagree, too.As for the bank deposit vs. right to one's body, it's apples and oranges to me.I expect this blog will generate a lot of discussion. As will the responses.Something I read in a U.S. self-described conservative article was quite interesting. The journalist posed the question, "If men were the ones who got pregnant in this patriarchal society, would this even be an issue?" Interestingly enough, people on both sides said it would not or, if it were, it would not be as big a deal.

Debbie, if you believe that life does not begin at fertilization, how is it that a fertilized egg can be removed from the biological mother, placed in a surrogate mother, and continue to grow a fetus genetically identical to the fertilized egg in the original mother?

If it has to go to a surrogate mother to grow into something, then it's the equivalent of a seed. Yes, the DNA is there, but it's potential life, not actual. There is always a large chance that the fertilized egg will not take.The notion of when life begins is one that we obviously feel very differently about. And I don't believe you will change your mind, nor will I change mine.

About

Name:: RozHometown::Ann Arbor, MI
Mother of several, grandmother of a couple, wife to one very good man. My epitaph will probably read, "Well, you just never know." Life is good, but it takes unexpected turns. Good thing I like surprises.